In one sense, the polyamorous defy easy categorization. The movement includes couples who openly and with full knowledge of each other engage in sexual relationships with others. Some are involved in group sex and others experiment with bisexuality. The Newsweek article introduces readers to a new vocabulary. The most revealing word is “polyfidelitous” — which means that the multiple partners keep sexual activity within their own self-identified cluster.
Interestingly, Bennett observes that the movement “has a decidedly feminist bent.” If men can have multiple wives or female partners, then, the logic goes, women must have the same in order to achieve “gender equality.” Bennett quotes Allena Gabosch, director of an organization known as the “Center for Sex Positive Culture,” suggesting that polyamory sounds scary to people because “it shakes up their worldview.” But, she insists, polyamory might well be “more natural than we think.”
Perhaps the best way to understand this new movement is to understand it as a natural consequence of subverting marriage. We have largely normalized adultery, serialized marriage, separated marriage from reproduction and childbearing, and accepted divorce as a mechanism for liberation. Once this happens, boundary after boundary falls as sexual regulation virtually disappears among those defined as “consenting adults.”
[blockquote]The ultimate sign of our moral confusion becomes evident when virtually no one appears ready to condemn polyamory as immoral. The only arguments mustered against this new movement focus on matters of practicality. Polyamory is certainly not new, but this new movement is yet another reminder that virtually all the fences are now down when it comes to sex and sexual relationships. What comes next?[/blockquote]
Anarchy? Actually it would appear that you find more morality in the barnyard.
It’s hard not to laugh. I remember when ssm first surfaced here in Maine. A number of letters to the ed. pointed out that polyamory was the next inevitable stgep. The homosexuals groups fervently and flatly denied this, saying that the argument was merely a device to keep them from being given their rights (etc.) That mankind cannot stand anarchy is well demonstrated, and polyamory is anarchy. TEC must accept it as a consiquence of their own actions. This is onemore reason why TEC’s death is inescapable.
Are you out there Susan Russell? And you think what of the polyamory business? What’s that you say? Larry
What’s interesting is that any polyamorous Christians could probably make a more compelling case for acceptance, using Scripture, than the SSM advocates could. Polygamy/polyamory remains the norm in many cultures and FAR predated monogamy. Just sayin’, not advocating.